McCain Now Says He’s ‘More Than Happy’ To Consider Flip-Flopping On Alaskan Oil Drilling
McCain Now Says He’s ‘More Than Happy’ To Consider Flip-Flopping On Alaskan Oil Drilling
In recent days, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) dropped his previous opposition to drilling for oil off the coasts of Florida and other coastal states. In fact, his current position is a shift from three weeks ago, when he said such drilling would do little to resolve America’s broader energy needs.
Now, McCain is weighing another flip-flop, this time in regards to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In a townhall in Springfield, Missouri yesterday, when asked about drilling in the refuge, McCain said he would reconsider his position:
I don’t know how you’d take advantage of it in an ecological manner, and that’s one of the reasons why I have opposed drilling up there. But as I say, I will look at all policies I have in light of this changed economic environment. … And I will go back and look at it again. And I will be more than happy to examine it again. But right now that’s, for a long period of time, that’s my position.
Watch it (at 1:10):
But just yesterday evening, on the PBS News Hour, McCain’s senior adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, stated, “He still opposes drilling in ANWR. It is named a national refuge for a reason. It is an ecologically special place, and he has always felt it should be at the back of the line for any domestic exploration.”
As late as Monday, McCain was still adamantly opposed to drilling in the refuge:
I believe that ANWR is a pristine area. Obviously, I’ve felt that way ever since we put it in to permanent preservation status. I do believe that there are places in the world, as I said, that we should not drill. [6/16/08]
As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world. [1/06/08]
I am opposed to it. … I certainly wouldn’t want to see another Exxon-Valdez situation, as you know. [12/8/07]
Yesterday, CNN’s Jack Cafferty mused that McCain is “liable to break a hip” with all of his flip-flopping.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Flip flop is becoming to slow a term for how fast he changes his stance. Any ideas?
June 19th, 2008 at 10:11 amI want to thank Mr. McCain for providing the Obama campaign with all the material they could ever need for this election.
Flippity floppity, floppity flippity! Good times!
PEACE
June 19th, 2008 at 10:12 amMcSame is killing his own campaign. Even his own advisors can’t keep up with his flip-flops, and I don’t think that it’s because McCain is so much more nimble - it’s that he’s just a wind sock.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:21 amShorter McCain: Elect me pleeeeeeze!!! Please please please….I’ll say whatever you want, bomb whomever you want, lick anywhere you want…whatever gets donations or kickbacks or corporate backing…really…I’ve no shame whatsoever! Shame is for suckers….pleeeeeeeze!!!!….*sob*…
June 19th, 2008 at 10:21 amThis is just another example of John McCain being out of touch. Here’s an example of how out of step and disconnected he is - John McCain doesn’t know how to use a computer! This is a problem on so many levels. That fact alone reflects so many revealing limitations.
See the interview where he admits not knowing how to use a computer - do a search - “mccain PC or Mac”
June 19th, 2008 at 10:22 amHow many goppers brain veins have to break before they admit to themselves that their selected candidate is a frigging lying sack of poopoo? The Republican implosion is a glorious thing to behold.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:34 amNew GOP strategy. Charlie Crist in Fla. opposed it three days ago, yesterday parroted McSame. Goopers are putting a lot of chips in the pot on this dubious policy. It’s ruin all our coastlines in exchange for a few days of oil at a higher rate than now in 2030. Wow such a deal.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:38 amFlorida looks better and better for Obama.
In 2000 candidate Bush was shocked, shocked do you hear me, over the $24 per barrel cost of oil. Candidate Bush was going to develop a clear, concise energy policy. Current record price of oil: $140 per barrel. So much for campaign rhetoric. Currently there are No available oil-drilling ships and they won’t be available for the next 5 years. As stated in other blogs, oil companies currenly have leases on 68 Million acres of Federal land with proven oil reserves. If developed these leases could reduce our volume of imported oil by one third. One wonders why oil companies won’t do this, and why they, and their hired guns/bought legislators keep shilling for offshore drilling. Follow the money and come up with some remarkable revalations.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:39 amImpeach Pelosi, Cheney and Bush, Save the Constitution and Make A Start!
Well, let’s be fair. McCain hasn’t actually flip-flopped yet on this issue — he’s just eyeing the spatula.
One of the things we expect in our leaders is the ability to look at changing conditions (environmental, economic, diplomatic, international, etc.) and have the courage to revisit previous stances and ensure they are still the best ones for the current climate.
If this is truly why McCain wants to re-evaluate his stance on ANWR drilling, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. One would hope that in his re-evaluation he will consider cost, volume of petroleum obtained (and how long it will last), damage to the environment, and when we would see benefits (if any).
However, I suspect it’s more likely that his re-evaluation will mostly consist of “which position is more likely to get me elected?”
June 19th, 2008 at 10:40 amIs anyone in Congress or are any of the candidates pushing for a national speed limit?
June 19th, 2008 at 10:41 amrogerse said:
In recent days, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) dropped his previous opposition to drilling for oil off the coasts of Florida and other coastal states.
Same article:
It’s hard to blame anyone for changing his or her positions on energy issues over the past eight years — markets have changed, America’s energy needs have changed, and prices have certainly changed. Even many Democrats have altered their positions on energy; most are much more supportive of climate change legislation than they once were.
There’s a difference between an evolution of ideas and just going the way the wind blows. And pointing out Democrats who do the same thing doesn’t change that. The “you’re just as bad as we are” defense isn’t very impressive.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 19th, 2008 at 10:43 ammisshusseinmolly said:
Well, let’s be fair. McCain hasn’t actually flip-flopped yet on this issue — he’s just eyeing the spatula.
Good one! Can I use that? Never mind, I’m sure I will, :)
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 19th, 2008 at 10:46 amMcCain:” I’ll be happy to change every statement I made in the past, as long as it fits my campaign slogans”…
June 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am“It’s election year , stupid”
ANWR drilling begs the question…
Why is big oil selling current Alaskan drilled oil to Japan?
Will they continue this practice with ANWR?
If the USA is that short of oil, why is this allowed?
June 19th, 2008 at 10:58 amJust increases the efficiency of the average vehicle on the road by one mile to the gallon will meet the demand that ANWR would provide.
So hmm, whats better…saving money on gas, emitting less pollutants and coming closer to lessening our dependence on oil….OR taking the Republican stance on keeping Americans dependent on oil, continuing to pollute our air and not saving the average motorist any money? (by the time the ANWR comes into production, China & India will have 100 million more cars on the road, if not, more)
Geez, we need to scratch our heads here, don’t we!
June 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am“Why is big oil selling current Alaskan drilled oil to Japan?”
Because what the Republican spin doctors won’t tell you is that domestic oil is part of a global market and if demand in China and India is skyrocketing, then people will be willing to pay more bucks for the black stuff. So in the end, the extra drilling might meet more demand, but it won’t do anything to offset prices as more and more people consume this limited resource.
The best and most immediate solution is to lessen our dependence on oil until we completely ween ourselves off the stuff…and if we don’t start now, we will only prolong the inevitable.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:17 amTheRight Says:
McPresident said:
“I believe that ANWR is a pristine area.”
False statement.
The tiny area that will be drilled is covered with ice during the winter and barren land during the summer. View a movie and photos of ANWR at
Hey Dipsh!t,
Read below:
pris·tine Listen to the pronunciation of pristine
Pronunciation:
\?pris-?t?n, pri-?st?n, especially British ?pris-?t?n\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin pristinus; akin to Latin prior
Date:
1534
1: belonging to the earliest period or state : original 2 a: not spoiled, corrupted, or polluted (as by civilization) : pure b: fresh and clean as or as if new
— pris·tine·ly adverb
I REALLY wish we could get some better class of trolls, especially with a bit better grasp of the English language.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:39 amMcFlipper flops again!
Tune in tomorrow to see his plan to invade Mesopotamia!
June 19th, 2008 at 11:46 amToo bad they can’t use the wind created by McLame’s F5 spinning to generate electricity!!
Jebus, he could power Los Angeles all by himself.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pmWhile I am still amazed by the number and rapidity of McPander Bears “flip-flops”, it’s nothing new. If one examines his political career one will see a clear pattern. He will sponsor, co-sponsor or vocally support a particular piece of legislation; only to vote the Party line. Often leaving his colleagues in open-mouth astonishment.
He and his fans claim this makes him a “maverick”. I say it makes him deceitful, duplicitous and utterly unworthy of trust.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pmLOL, Leftside Annie!
On a related note: I wonder how much global climate would be helped if we forbade politicians from wasting hot air? I once read that a normal person puts out three times the CO2 of a car over a year. We could probably double that for politicians, so, every politician who stops breathing would be equal to six cars!And some of them would be silly enough to vote for a “hold your breathe” Amendment.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:08 pmMcCain Now Says He’s ‘More Than Happy’ To Consider Flip-Flopping On Alaskan Oil Drilling”
At this point in his career, it getting hard to find an issue that he hasn’t Flip-Flopped on already.
POP QUIZ: Can anyone name an issue on which McSame has NOT Flip-Flopped?
June 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pmTheRight:
You gotta be a paid troll of the Repugs, the oil companies or on staff with Teddy “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens.
Which is it?
I have been to Prudhoe Bay many times and that place is a f’ing disaster area. Ever been there?
Have you seen the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez? I have, and it is still killing wildlife this many years later.
Gotta hear your answer on this one.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:42 pmOr, as the latest thread just appeared, maybe you work for Don Young R-AK, another Poster Child of the Repug Depraved Party.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pmTheRight Says:
——————————————————————————–
Read this Regressives!
Lastly at the top of ANWR, there is a special area of 1.5 million acres on the Arctic Coastal Plain called the “10-02” Area. The 10-02 Area takes its name from the section of the Congressional bill, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), that expanded ANWR in 1980. In Section 10-02 Congress set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain specifically for “oil and gas exploration”. This 10-02 Area is classified legally neither as “refuge” nor as “wilderness”, rather defined and separated by Congress for oil and gas exploration due to its well-known geological evidence of potential large hydrocarbon deposits. The 10-02 area, is bordered on the north by the Beaufort Sea, on the east by ANWR “wilderness” area and the U.S. Canadian border, and on the west by the Canning River and ANWR outer border. It is completely flat and barren with no trees, hills, or mountains. Nine months of the year is covered with snow and ice and practically void of life. Three of those months are in total 24 hour darkness. In the 6 weeks of summer the coastal plain is dotted with thousands of lakes and is covered by boggy tundra on permafrost (permanently frozen ground).
The 10-02 Area is a further anomaly within ANWR’s border in that it contains 92,000 acres of private land owned by the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC) of Kaktovik, ANWR’s only settlement and population. The subsurface rights of this 92,000 acres are owned by the Inupiat native organization the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC).
It can’t be completely barren even if it’s flatland.
Wildlife even lives in the city, though in smaller amounts…there’s always life. Even where it’s cold and freezing, or haven’t you ever read about Antarctica?
Privately owned means that hardly anyone visits it. Most of Anwar is untouched. Millions of acres is ALOT for nothing to be on, if you ask me. And drilling there could potentially pollute surrounding areas, especially since I imagine you’d need special equipment because of how the weather gets in that particular area.
Sorry kid, no fortune cookie for you.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:59 pmAlso it should be noted: it would take far too long to get the estimated amount that exists there — which is small in comparison to America’s consumption…which means it’s pretty much a non-solution, period. Ignoring, of course, that we can’t rely on our government to care more about us than their corporate buddies and their profits…so even if we did go through with it, there’s no gaurentee they’d sell it to us anyway.
And it would do virtually nothing to the prices.
So basically the whole point is, this is a pretty stupid, waste of money and effort to do. We need real solutions. If our government devoted more time and money into alternative energy, alternative transportation technologies, and alternatives fuels (like my favorite, algae fuel).l. we would probably all be feeling alot better before the year is out.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:03 pmBut I doubt that this will happen.
TheRight,
You still are dodging my questions in numbers 27 and 28.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:14 pmYou say McFlip and I say McFlop, You say McSame and I say McBush. Anyway you cut it McNursing home ready is one helluva scary dude. If you liked Iraq you’ll really like Iran!
June 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pmThe Right says “If you have issues with the contents, please contact the Eskimos who wrote it. Watch the movie also. I will provide the popcorn.”
June 19th, 2008 at 2:23 pmJust visit us in the Last Frontier and use that bigoted term, and see how far they Alaska natives can float your carcus down the Yukon. Changin my name to Still Just a Chechako.
Guess TheRight found the kitchen a bit too hot for his arse.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pmUm. Here’s the problem. ANWR was envisioned as a reserve of last resort. For political reasons, the Reps throw it out every so often, but, no one mentions the biggest issue. COST.
Even if everything related to location and weather goes as planned? It will still be the most expensive crude on the planet. All of that, mind you, doesn’t include costs for spill cleanup and disposal.
That’s why the most aggressive plans, from the oil companies, don’t call for much production before 2018. And even then most projections are that they will pump/ship about 2-7% of our current demands. If our net consumption is still rising then? That 2-7% shrinks markedly.
I think that most would say that there are better targets for easing the current oil crunch. Personally? I would prefer to see the oil stay where it is until we use less for fuel. Then we can at least continue making plastics. But, the worst possible move would be to rush production, cutting corners and taking shortcuts, for political capital. The best that this could accomplish is the depletion of a reserve which may prove invaluable at a latter date.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:30 pmI have been to Alaska. I think the term you might be looking for is Innuit. Simply lifestyle changes would yield greater returns than anything you will ever get out of ANWR
June 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pmI have been to Alaska. I think the term you might be looking for is Innuit. Simply lifestyle changes would yield greater returns than anything you will ever get out of ANWR
June 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pmWhy the double post. Was it to get my to correct simply to simple?
June 19th, 2008 at 5:44 pmTheRight Says:
I have never been to Alaska.
Let me have it guys. Both barrels. Nuke me. Worse yet, make me read this blog 24 hours a day for one year.
I don’t see then, why you are trying to defend ANWR leasing when there is almost no impact on the price of oil and even that won’t hit for at least 10 years.
Either you work in the oil industry or your parents have deep investments in it.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pmWow. It’s getting so every time he says “I may reconsider my position” I have to wonder which position he’s has in mind.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:06 pm